On August 28th, I came across the following press release:
Every generation has an iconic figure who captures the spirit, personifies the will, and represents the hope and promise of its people. Sen. Barack Obama is cast in this mold: He stands among a select few, an heir of the icons and civic leaders who came before him, who all dutifully accepted the responsibility of public service in a quest to move our country in a new direction.
Today, we proudly stand on the threshold of a historic moment. This evening — on the 45th anniversary of Dr. King’s “I Have A Dream” speech — Sen. Obama will become the first African-American to accept the presidential nomination of a major U.S. political party. This is a symbolic realization of Dr. King’s vision, a triumphant milestone in U.S. history, regardless of one’s political affiliations.
Haven MediaGroup founder and noted percussionist Harvey Mason, legendary vocalist Deniece Williams and songwriter Jerry Peters were all inspired by Sen. Obama’s quest for the presidency and his universal message for change. The trio collaborated to create “A Change We Can Believe In,” a stirring recording that embodies Sen. Obama’s platform.
An anthem of hope, unity and democracy, we believe everyone can find solidarity and inspiration in “A Change We Can Believe In." Celebrate history with us and play "A Change We Can Believe In" on your station or add it to your playlist; two versions are available for download by clicking the links below:
Universal Chorus Version:
www.havencomingsoon.com/achangewecanbelievein/Yes_We_Can_Chorus_Second.mp3
Deniece Williams Lead Vocal Version:
www.havencomingsoon.com/achangewecanbelievein/Yes_We_Can_Deniece_Williams_First.mp3
Also, you can watch its video by clicking on the YouTube link below:
YouTube URL:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YX5we3cWgrk
If you would rather not receive future email messages from Beaman Incorporated, let us know by clicking here.Beaman Incorporated, 737 N. Michigan Ave Suite 2060, Chicago, IL 60611 United States
I clicked on the media links above, and was immediately reminded of a scene from the movie "Cabaret".
Let's re-live the moment. Senator Barrack Obama was going to become the annointed candidate for the Democrat nomination to the American Presidency. He was going to accept this nomination in a stadium decorated as a neo-Classical temple. Surely someone must see how over-the-top this all was going to be. But all I heard were crickets chirping. Until today, when I see that someone finally noticed what this campaign is turning into. From Gateway Pundit, "Freaky Video Surfaces... Cult Kids Sing 'Yes We Can' Indoctrination Song".
"It's like that Texas cult but they wear blue hope T-shirts instead.Can you say, Indoctrination? Somebody rescue these kids!"
The rise of national socialism, the rise of fascism, were both viewed by the citizens of Germany and Italy as a response to a progressive agenda. Instead of relying upon the creativity of individuals, Germans and Italians turned to the State to provide them a Vision. Were your "rights" as a German or Italian threatened by corrupt and greedy corporations? It was time to vote for "Change!" (Is there any question why the Left supports Hamas and the PLO? Has dinner with Ahmadinejad? Criticises Israel?)
The images being evoked by the Democrats were disturbing. The parallels between the rise of national socialism and fascism were there. So I did what any person would do. Called mom.
She was relieved that I had called. 
She had experienced the evocative response to the media adoration, the images and the attitudes of the progressive movement that I had had. See, World War Two was a real thing with mom. Beyond the usual, family and friends fighting and dying to keep freedom safe, I also have an uncle--had an uncle--who did something rather unusual. On April 29, 1945, my uncle entered Dachau.
So, from the tip of his head, to his promise of "Change!" there is a fundamental part of me that is repulsed by Barrack Obama and his progressive acolytes. How fundamentally repulsed?
Watch this video.
7 comments:
creepy dude
MM
The kid vid struck me as a bit creepy, as well.
However, I reject the facsist label completely - it's applied far too broadly.
Obama strikes me more as along the lines of Jim Jones.
That song from Cabaret was spookily similar to the Obama stuff.
The scary part is that the movement itself becomes the magic. Everyone is projecting their own expectations on this empty suit - and it doesn't matter that there's nothing there to worship.
Shudder.
You're right in that "facist" is the wrong term.
Heck, most people don't even know what it means (other than "someone I don't like).
Still, I think the term "Obamashirts" would not be too far out of line.
You Obama bashers are too funny! You already have the closest thing to a fascist we've ever had in the White House and you want to add his near clone to the office for another four years? Hilarious. Especially when McSame has adopted the change mantra for himself--too bad he's never had an original thought to back that up.
Mr. Richpix,
I have no idea what has encouraged you to visit...you clearly have an agenda, but when I click on your tag I'm directed to a blank user page.
When you assess your gifts, to whom do you give thanks? To God? To your parents?
It's an important starting point. I adhere to the classical liberal viewpoint, that man is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights. I combine this belief with observations made by other men, especially DesCartes' "I think, therefore, I am".
This simple statement takes Man's Rights as residing solely through his existence as the political authority of each and every individual man. Perhaps the best explanation of Man's individuality and the role Man plays within the State is expressed in Locke's "Second Treatise". You can find another statement of the dignity of Man in Edmund Burke's "Thoughts on the Present Discontents" where he writes, "Nations are not primarily ruled by laws; less by violence."
I wrote at length on the tension that exists between Freedom and Slavery, between Tolerance and Intolerance, between the Libertarian and the Authoritarian mindset here. What I've attempted to point out is that there is a huge difference betweeen those who take individual responsibility for their actions and the outcomes attendent upon those choices, and those who view the government as being responsible for their actions and the outcomes attendent upon that choice.
ZZMike presented a brief argument that the term "fascist" was improperly used. I haven't commented until now, because I want to encourage the widest possible latitude in expressing views on this post. I'm pretty sure that ZZMike does know what the definition of Fascism is; I think he's trying to indicate a preference for avoiding this particular term, so widely misused in the political life of persons who mis-apply it, as you have, to persons like our current President.
What does Fascism mean? From the Merriam-Webster:
"1. The principles of the Fascist; also, the movement or governmental regime embodying their principles.
"2. Any program for setting up a centralized autocratic national regime with severly nationalistic policies, exercising regimentation of industry, commerce, and finance, rigid censorship, and forcible suppression of opposition."
Richpix, if you knew anything about conservatives, or most Republicans, you would know that a constant theme of both is increasing decentralization--called competition--and opposition to calls to increase regulation (regimentation) of industry, commerce and finance.
In fact, I think it would be fair to state that it would not be contrary to assert that Senator Obama is, in fact, seeking greater control over wide areas of private behaviour. Especially, in the areas of industry, commerce and finance. Add to this the "cult of personality" that is being pushed by his supporters, and I think you have a fairly complete description of the rise of fascism in the United States.
You, applying the Afpel Test, really, really, really believe that President Bush is "the closest thing to a fascist we've ever had in the White House" and since you really, really, really believe it, there's nothing I can say to you to disprove it.
Was it President Bush's support for increases in Medicare or Medicaid that you cite as evidence of increasing state control over industry? Okay. Was it President Bush's support for increased federal spending for education through the No Child Left Behind Act? Okay. Or was it his strategic decisions in his prosecution of the war against Islami Terror? Okay. If this is your evidence, then President Bush is a fascist, as were Presidents Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Bush I and Clinton. That is to say, since you won't show us what you believe, and why you believe it, but instead float in, drop a few views to register your Afpel Test Results, I have no reason to believe that Bush II is in type or kind different than most of our nation's presidents since 1862. And I don't believe the appelation "fascist" applies. For reasons I've given.
What I do see is a type and kind of political discussion that is taking us far afield from the dispassionate discussion of policy choices and their outcomes. Fundamentals are being ignored, replaced with rhetorical cant.
But thanks for stopping by and providing us with the view from SoCal. You do have gifts. How you choose to use them is completely up to you.
But to whom, or what, do you give thanks for the gifts you've received? Do I have the right to impose my beliefs on you? I'd never attempt it. But I do try to make the process, of arriving at the correct conclusion, available to you. What you do with it is your responsibility.
.
We see where deregulation highly supported by McCain has taken us--near fiscal collapse.
Your Obama hyperbole and distortion of facts won't change that. Nor will accusing me of being from Southern California, where Orange County is located. Is that the part of SoCal to which you were referring?
Your modus operandi seems to be to use the most inflammatory and hateful language possible to make your case. Do you think fear-mongering helps your case? Does raising issues to hysterical extremes make for effective argument? Are lies part of good policy?
Post a Comment